At first sight, George Osborne’s defence of his undeclared donations looked pretty good: the money was declared to the Electoral Commission, the Parliamentary authorities were asked if it needed declaring to them, they said no, but if they’ve now changed their minds, it’ll be done went the story.
However, this neat line is starting to look a little more ragged as more details come out:
a. The Parliamentary authorities were indeed asked – but not until eleven months after the money was received.
b. As The Sun reports today, “Last night he [George Osborne] said the advice may have been “unclear”.”
c. As a BBC journalist pointed out at today’s David Cameron press conference, David Willetts has received similar donations but he chose to declare them to the Parliamentary authorities.
d. Reading the email exchange with the Parliamentary authorities, it doesn’t give as clear ‘it’s ok, you don’t need declare those funds’ message as some Conservatives were suggesting yesterday. The Times has the full exchange here.
Are these just rough edges to an essentially sound defence, or will the defence start seriously coming apart until further scrutiny? We will see…
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Could Hitler have won?
Say hello to the Act that successfully set rules 1,050 years into the future - Calendar (New Style) Act 1750
Indecision costing the taxpayers millions
1963: London's summer of the Hoverbus
theakes
Tristan Ward
Abrial Jerram